Analysis of separate and combined effects of common variation in KCNJ11 and PPARG on risk of type 2 diabetes

Sara Krogh Hansen, Eva-Maria D Nielsen, Jakob Ek, Gitte Andersen, Charlotte Glümer, Bendix Carstensen, Peter Mouritzen, Thomas Drivsholm, Knut Borch-Johnsen, Torben Jørgensen, Torben Hansen, Oluf Pedersen

44 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The separate and combined effects of the PPARG Pro(12)Ala polymorphism and the KCNJ11 Glu(23)Lys polymorphisms on risk of type 2 diabetes were investigated in relatively large-scale, case-control studies. Separate effects of the variants were examined among 1187/1461 type 2 diabetic patients and 4791/4986 middle-aged, glucose-tolerant subjects. The combined analysis involved 1164 type 2 diabetic patients and 4733 middle-aged, glucose-tolerant subjects. In the separate analyses, the K allele of the KCNJ11 Glu(23)Lys associated with type 2 diabetes (odds ratio, 1.19; P = 0.0002), whereas the PPARG Pro(12)Ala showed no significant association with type 2 diabetes. The combined analysis indicated that the two polymorphisms acted in an additive manner to increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, and we found no evidence for a synergistic interaction between them. Analysis of a model with equal additive effects of the two variants showed that the odds ratio for type 2 diabetes increased with 1.14/risk allele (P = 0.003). Together, the two polymorphisms conferred a population-attributable risk for type 2 diabetes of 28%. In conclusion, our results showed no evidence of a synergistic interaction between the KCNJ11 Glu(23)Lys and PPARG Pro(12)Ala polymorphisms, but indicated that they may act in an additive manner to increase the risk of type 2 diabetes.
Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism
Volume90
Issue number6
Pages (from-to)3629-37
Number of pages9
ISSN0021-972X
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jun 2005

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Analysis of separate and combined effects of common variation in KCNJ11 and PPARG on risk of type 2 diabetes'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this